Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Raynor]

But we do know that these are just made up characters in a book

However, as has been pointed out previously, this invokes an exception to morality that, as far as I am aware, does not exist. As far as I am aware, this point has not been yet addressed.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, as has been pointed out previously, this invokes an exception to morality that, as far as I am aware, does not exist. As far as I am aware, this point has not been yet addressed.

Sorry but it's ever so slightly paranoid to think that the billions of ordinary people who find the bad guys in books or films or comics thrilling are somehow "morally wrong".

If we took things to that extreme we'd be telling kids that Doctor Who was evil because he is a Time Lord and it refutes scriptures. Or that they shouldn't read the Wind In The Willows because talking, sentient animals are pagan. Or that they shouldn't listen to Motorhead as it might make you gay (as one notoriously silly website claims). In fact many people claim nobody should read Tolkien because it encourages witchcraft.

They should get a life.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

They should get a life.

Precisely! Thank you, Lal!

~*~

Now, I have a thought I'd like to share.

In reading over the posts on this thread, it seems to me that few are actually trying to answer the question The 1,000 Reader first posed (and this includes him). Rather, I think a good portion of the posts are not discussing why people might like the bad guys, but actually seem to be criticizing those people for liking the bad guys (i.e. the questioning of morality, etc). Exploring the attraction of the bad guys is one thing, but maligning the people who like them is entirely a different matter. I think the direction and tone of the thread needs a change, then, if this is the case.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Surely you will not tell me that you are trying to draw some kind of twisted moral equivalence between the live-and-let-live (for the most part) Elves, and the murderous near-automatons of a ruthless and compassionless overlord?

I suppose that more than anything, I'm pointing out the great flaw in Middle-Earth, which is that the evil are doomed to evil with no chance or choice of repentance. An orc is unable to repent of its "evil" - the evil is inherent in its blood. And, if this is the case, and morality is defined by intent, not genetics, then orcs are not immoral.

The argument that orcs are evil is similar to labelling the mentally ill as evil. They don't choose to hear voices commanding them to murder. They are doomed to it.

Melkor and the fallen Maiar and Valar may be evil by intent, but not the orcs and the trolls. They are victims as much as the Elves and Men.

Originally Posted by Gorbag, lotr

What d'you say? - if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses.

The passage in the Stairs of Cirith Ungol always gets me. You see that orcs are slaves of Sauron, as much to be pitied as hated.

If anyone thinks the Goth contingent is confined to teenagers, you are gravely mistaken. There are people of all ages who are miserable, and would like nothing more than to drag everyone else down into their misery with them -- the idea that someone, somewhere is happy makes them go postal.

None of the Goths I know are depressed, and none of the depressive people I know are Goths. I'd say being a Goth is more about being different than about being depressed. Also, as Lalwende says, the Goth subculture, in my experience, is unusually intelligent.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Some of us indeed might be pinko commies, gays, ethnic minorities or 'satanic' atheists and pagans.

Some are all four at once.

[Raynor]

Sorry but it's ever so slightly paranoid to think that the billions of ordinary people who find the bad guys in books or films or comics thrilling are somehow "morally wrong".

What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.

If we took things to that extreme we'd be telling kids that Doctor Who was evil because he is a Time Lord and it refutes scriptures. Or that they shouldn't read the Wind In The Willows because talking, sentient animals are pagan.

Your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't address the question, which concerned our attitudes towards evil persons - and not what makes a person evil or not, and not what should we do about books where evil characters appear.

Concerning your first example, Tolkien is a foremost defender of the idea that fairy-tales and religion are not mutually exclusive - quite the contrary.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I suppose that more than anything, I'm pointing out the great flaw in Middle-Earth, which is that the evil are doomed to evil with no chance or choice of repentance.

The subject of irremediable allegiance to evil is not considered settled. Anyway, Tolkien stated in the letters that "there exists the possibility of being placed in a position beyond one's power", and he wasn't having only Middle Earth in mind - and I agree. While having a mythological-level power at one's disposal may ease almost complete corruption of others (Tolkien stated that no one can be absolute evil), even in our world there are, unfortunately, ways to condition persons into evil.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

Melkor and the fallen Maiar and Valar may be evil by intent, but not the orcs and the trolls. They are victims as much as the Elves and Men.

However, there are characters (Gollum the most representative) that refuse repentance and persist in wickedness.

[the guy who be short]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance. Appendix B, 11 March, 3019:

Gollum visits Shelob, but seeing Frodo asleep almost repents.

Sam drove Gollum away from repentance with his lack of compassion and mercy.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance. Appendix B, 11 March, 3019: Sam drove Gollum away from repentance with his lack of compassion and mercy.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?

I've got a friend who fancies Gollum - she says she wants to mother him, and was delighted when I gave her a Gollum screensaver and wallpaper saying "Oh, I love Gollum, he's so lovely."

She's also a Christian. And is delightfully eccentric and kind.

Gollum repents by falling into the cracks of doom, and he is almost there before that stage until as tgwbs says, he is driven away from it. He is consumed by the Ring, so we just can't say for sure he failed to repent as he was out of his mind.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral. But they aren't.

Many villify the video game industry for peddling games based on violence, but only a tiny handful of people who play said games are violent and these are people who you find were usually disturbed to begin with. Even those who supposedly only like thoroughly 'wholesome' things who are disturbed are perfectly capable of turning those 'wholesome' things into sickness, as shown by the sicko who visited my blog this week or the priests and pastors found guilty of crimes against children.

Being into good or bad characters has absolutely no bearing on a person's intentions.

Your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't address the question, which concerned our attitudes towards evil persons - and not what makes a person evil or not, and not what should we do about books where evil characters appear.

Yes it does. The question asks us if people who like 'bad guys' are evil. The answer is "don't be silly".

There's one bad guy who is utterly repellent, more so than anything you'll find in Tolkien, but who has turned out to be some weird kind of anti-hero to decent people the world over. Hannibal Lecter.

In the novel Hannibal we see him on the loose, up to his old tricks, but when the other gang of bad guys are about to feed him to the man-eating pigs we're hoping against hope that he gets free. Even Clarice Starling, his nemesis hopes that he gets free. Bear in mind that this guy is a pure sociopath, someone beyond all hope of reason, beyond cure, he is as close to pure evil as you could hope to get in this world. He east people's faces! But we want him to get away!

Concerning your first example, Tolkien is a foremost defender of the idea that fairy-tales and religion are not mutually exclusive - quite the contrary.

Fairy tales are the remnants of the Old Religion, and the New Religion appropriated so much from it that of course it also appropriated the Fairy tales where it could. Tolkien's theory on Fairy Tale reflecting Christianity doesn't really work in truth because fairy tale is beyond the constraints of religion, in many cases existed as a rebellion and defence against religion - his thoughts are more those of a man trying to reconcile his faith with his fascination for the blood thirsty and deeply pagan.

Originally Posted by CaptainofDespair

Exploring the attraction of the bad guys is one thing, but maligning the people who like them is entirely a different matter. I think the direction and tone of the thread needs a change, then, if this is the case.

Indeed. Let's be careful as there are many people on here who could easily be offended by being tarred with the 'evil' brush. Just as we don't appreciate being told we don't understand Tolkien's work because we are not Christian we also get the 'ump when told we are evil for maybe getting a kick out of reading about Saruman or Orcs or Dragons.

[Raynor]

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral.

I am. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy: you have yet to prove that if one delights in evil, then one will necessarily do evil acts. Fortunately, there are steps.

Being into good or bad characters has absolutely no bearing on a person's intentions.

However, that does not make delighting in evil morally right (when it occurs).

The question asks us if people who like 'bad guys' are evil. The answer is "don't be silly".

So, I take it you will never justify why you consider there is a moral exception in this subject?

But we want him to get away!

Being a victim of evil (or accidents) doesn't make one good. However, to turn to Tolkien, we must be tempered by mercy in our personal judgement; "But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge."

Tolkien's theory on Fairy Tale reflecting Christianity doesn't really work in truth because fairy tale is beyond the constraints of religion, in many cases existed as a rebellion and defence against religion - his thoughts are more those of a man trying to reconcile his faith with his fascination for the blood thirsty and deeply pagan.

I certainly doubt he considered fairy-tales all over the world as reflecting Christianity; his position was that fairy tales can be used as an alternative vehicle for conveying the truth.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy: you have yet to prove that if one delights in evil, then one will necessarily do evil acts.

You mean you have to prove that.

[Raynor]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance.

However, lack of favorable conditions is not an excuse for persistance in wickedness.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?

If it has any relevance, I actually debated with such a person.

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If people who cannot do that wish to judge me for it, then it's not my problem but theirs.

Lalwendë, I apologize if this became a personal attack on you, it is not. I certainly know the difference between fiction and reality. I have nothing against those who enjoy a well-written villain in the context of a work of fiction -- such antagonists are necessary to good fiction. The kinds of people I am admittedly ranting about in my long-winded post are those who also know the difference between fiction and reality, but who also sympathize with and would (if they could) emulate the practices and methods of the villains. In essence, they are calling evil good, and good evil. I humbly ask The 1,000th Reader to confirm whether or not I have interpreted the question correctly.

And Lalwende, I note that you did not address the fundamental logical fallacies in your post which I pointed out.

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Does anyone actually read Lord of the Rings and thinks 'hey let's try and raise an army of orcs and try and take over the whole world'?

No, but there are those who read Mein Kampf and think the same thing. They are probably the same ones T1000R is talking about in his original post.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

The kinds of people I am admittedly ranting about in my long-winded post are those who also know the difference between fiction and reality, but who also sympathize with and would (if they could) emulate the practices and methods of the villains. In essence, they are calling evil good, and good evil. I humbly ask The 1,000th Reader to confirm whether or not I have interpreted the question correctly.

Pretty much. On a lesser note, it is also wondering why some less obsessed fans always say that Melkor was doing good things yet never acknowledge that in the end, Melkor was a jerk and they're just playing.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, my point is that one doesn't have to act on a certain desire/intention to be immoral. One cannot say that he delights in evil and still claim complete morality.

But the sticking point is that we cannot say what is moral and what is immoral. You can't tell me what's moral. I can't tell you what's moral. And even 'God' can't tell us what's moral.

As an aside - why can't 'God' tell us that? Simply because there are many 'Gods' and even those who ostensibly share the same God can have huge differences - e.g. many still think homosexuality is immoral whereas their brothers and sisters in the same faith wholeheartedly believe it to be perfectly moral. These kinds of differences are common across all faiths and ideologies.

Even when we get into questions of 'violence' there are questions of what morality is. Some tribespeople in New Guinea have been cannibals (and are said to remain cannibals, despite attempts to persuade them away from the practise) and this is a deeply held part of of their morality - the enemy must be consumed in order to achieve a complete victory over him. That kind of morality makes Westerners cringe, but it's a morality all the same, no matter if we feel uncomfortable with it. Even in the West similar differences are thrown up by the question of circumcision. A friend of mine was 'honoured' with an invite to a female ceremony in Tanzania and despite finding this act to be immoral had to go along as this was very much moral in that culture; likewise there has been a storm in the UK after a Jewish baby died following a circumcision with both sides throwing around terms like 'child abuse' and 'religious tradition'.

Who's right? I can't say. Nor can you.

So in an infinitely less serious circumstance, that of say whether you find Saruman a bit exciting, is it:
a. even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.
and
b. is it important anyway? Are we just being a little bit silly?

I have to say that if anyone from outside the Tolkien community saw this they'd be laughing their heads off. Just how irrelevant and out of touch do we sound? Like it actually matters if you like the literary creations that are Orcs when there are people out there right now engaging in real, genuine and truly frightening acts of cruelty. And we're being asked if we want to tar and feather some ordinary kid for being fond of imaginary characters in a ruddy book!

All I'm asking is that we simply Get A Grip.

[Salacia Deloresista]

I don't think it's at all petty to examine the bad guys. The heroes are extremely heroic, and that's why we love the story, but what makes the bad guy's tick, and why is that fascinating? That's a question worth a discussion thread.

Now granted, I don't root for the bad guys in LotR (at 4' 11" I sympathize a little too much with the hobbits) but I have to admit to a kind of fascination with them. One of the things that really struck me when I read LotR for the first time was how, unlike a lot of other fairy tales, the lines between "good" and "evil" are not quite as defined. The ring works by twisting the weaknesses and desires of each character and bending them to it's own will. The servants of Sauron are not some "other" which we can put in a box and call evil, but a vision of what we could become, a vision of fallen humanity. Sauron's servants are those creatures who simply gave up fighting with themselves and gave in to the lure of the ring.

We all know/knew people like that, especially in high school. That's the guy who got sick of constantly trying and failing and so gave up, became a stoner, dropped out of school and now flips burgers somewhere. Recognizing that evil is something we all have in us brings the orcs and goblins and other creatures a lot closer.

So those guys, the ones who root for the bad guys, they're not rooting for evil, they're rooting for themselves.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.

Ah, the moral relativism defence.

I have little reason to worry about it; logically, moral relativism is twice contradicting: it allows for two opposite propositions, p and non-p, to be true (it defeats the very foundation of logic); and second: if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well. Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

I have no problem drawing a line between concepts which lie upon a continua in the conceptual space - and matters are not as shady in Middle Earth as in the primary world. There, the very essence of Melkor and Sauron is nihilism. I am really curious who would argue that nihilism, utter destruction of everything, could be construed in a moral way. Nihilism itself excludes morality, since it allows for nothing to exist and therefore no distinctions to be made.